silvervial:Either there will be a return to focus on the working class/poor/middle class...or there will be revolt.

Nope.

Have you looked at your fellow Hippopotamus-American? They couldn't run a revolt because they can run 20 feet without gasping for breath.

The American public is fattened-up and dumbed-down for slaughter.

The owners of the country want the NSA so that they know what everyone is doing and thinking so that they're ready to quash any major dissent quickly.

I'm looking for a way out to work and live in a real developed country where the roads and bridges aren't neglected goat paths, they have 180mph trains, and you don't lose your home to a health emergency or going into 6 figure debt to put your kids through school.

Since the 1960's cartels have been establish to artificially raise prices in healthcare and education where once these things were considered a basic service of a civilized nation -- you know -- like every other developed nation does.

Now we're plagues with willfully ignorant tea-tards who vote to elect the people farking them even harder.

FTA: "According to Alpert's analysis, 69% of the jobs created in the second quarter - and 57% in the first half of 2013 - were in the three lowest-paying sectors of the economy: retail trade, administrative and waste services, and leisure and hospitality. These jobs, which account for 33% of all private sector jobs, pay an average of $15.80 per hour."

I wonder how many of these jobs were filled by recent college graduates who can't find work in their field?

fatassbastard:You can keep coming up with excuses to not save, and never have anything, and no bulwark whatsoever against the proverbial "rainy day", or you can make small sacrifices and begin to take control of your personal finanaces

$6000 in 10 years is less than useless. That could be wiped out by one illness, one broken down car, one bought of unemployment, one of nearly any of the pitfalls of being poor.. Better to use that $25/paycheck and buy beer to make those 10 years suck less, because saving at that level isn't going to do jack or shiat to actually pay for anything. It's not going to give you control of your finances. To save, people actually need to make money, and with wages trending downwards, they're not.

mod3072:Wow, good job. You saw right through my clever ruse to shill for the Republican party by bashing the Republican party. I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!

Okay... I'll ignore what I perceived as an endorsement for the pubs. So aside from that you went to great lengths to tell us all how much we slobber over dem cock. The Farkers in general are totally brainwashed by the dems to march in lockstep and we are nothing but subserviant sheeple to the 0bamster.

The thing is... I'm here pretty much every day... even if I'm not posting. Even the libbiest libs on here don't do that. They have plenty of complaints and poor opinions about the current administration. These guys may be derp farmers but they aren't actually dumb. So even ignoring the fact it did indeed appear you were endorsing the republican party you were still using a common right wing tactic of making anyone who even THINKS of voting democratic as mindless sheep.

It simply is not true. The reality is most are not happy with that party but the other guys are indeed WAY worse. Like freaking nutsoid, sell us all into slavery, launch large scale global conflicts next WEEK kind of worse.

You think they are the same? On some things sure. They both obey money masters. They both think of themselves before the people. But they are so different and so many OTHER ways that any thinking person with an ounce of human compassion don't even see the right wing as a viable alternative.

It is insulting to say those people are blind and brainwashed. They just have no other choice.

Capicheka? Now run along to your clever boys club meeting. Don't want to keep them waiting.

MaudlinMutantMollusk:vpb: BunkyBrewman: We've been well aware that our entire economy is shifting to service based for at least a few decades now.

Yes, since we decided to shift it in that direction in the 80's.

As the manufacturing jobs were being moved overseas, coincidentally

/I always wondered how a country can have a gross national product once they've stopped actually producing anything

To be fair, quite a lot of them just moved across the border to Mexico.

The destruction of America's manufacturing jobs was hardly accidental and it was completely bipartisan.

Bush Senior began negotiation of the first of the free trade agreements that allowed the rich to move America's manufacturing jobs out of the United States without facing any sort of financial penalty when the finished goods were brought back inside the US for sale.

Clinton finished the negotiations and fought to have the treaty ratified as one of his very first actions in office. He blew a huge amount of political capital to get it past his own party due to huge union opposition.

Bought off representatives of both parties repeatedly promised that these treaties would mean more manufacturing jobs for Americans.

This is a serious question, not a polemic masked as one. It seems throughout our history before World War II the U.S. and, indeed, the world did not have a sizeable middle class. It was the haves and the have-nots, by and large, with a small middle- or merchant class.

After WWII, the American industrial machine ramped up exponentially, producing consumer goods, largely for a domestic market, produced by a well-paid, moderate- to low-skill workforce. Producers could afford to pay these wages because they were selling their products to a somewhat captive market at high prices.

Over time, with efficiencies in manufacturing processes and improved global transport systems, the American market was flooded with lower-cost goods produced in countries without American-style wage structures or worker-safety and environmental protections.

These and a number of other factors killed the American producer/consumer cycle that formed after the 1940s.

My questions are; was the economic structure that produced such a huge middle class in America a false one? Was it all a pyramid scheme that was destined to collapse? Is the very notion of a free economy without huge wealth disparities even practical on a scale as big as the American one? Or is a new model conceivable that would put a healthy percentage of Americans back to work at good wages, without raping the environment and putting lives at risk?

As I said, I'm not arguing any school of thought on this issue, as I really don't know what the solution is, or even if my stated assumptions are valid.

Infernalist:The richest in this country have spent 40 years working hard to drag us back down to the glory years before The New Deal came along and 'now' you all seem surprised for some reason.

Exactly! Why people cannot see that this has been the goal of the (mainly) republicans for YEARS, to return us to the days of the robber barons, is beyond me. Maybe they never read any history?

But the pendulum is going to swing back hard soon. The New Deal was mostly able to be put into place because a lot of wise people feared socialism, real socialism not the boogy man created by the teahadists. They realized there would be a revolution in this country if they didn't give some sops to the poor/working class, so they did. And it worked. It has ceased working because so much has been dismantled.

Either there will be a return to focus on the working class/poor/middle class...or there will be revolt.

jim32rr:Lived in Germany for a bit after exiting the Army, I found it interesting that in Germany, 'management and unions worked closely together in the interests of the common good. Indeed, by law all major German firms are required to set up Works Councils, where the bosses and the unions must work together 'in a spirit of mutual trust'.

///words from a BBC story

Really, only in the US are unions and management antagonistic towards each other. The rest of the world realizes that labor and management have the same farking goal: make the company successful.

lousy screw:This is a serious question, not a polemic masked as one. It seems throughout our history before World War II the U.S. and, indeed, the world did not have a sizeable middle class. It was the haves and the have-nots, by and large, with a small middle- or merchant class.

After WWII, the American industrial machine ramped up exponentially, producing consumer goods, largely for a domestic market, produced by a well-paid, moderate- to low-skill workforce. Producers could afford to pay these wages because they were selling their products to a somewhat captive market at high prices.

Over time, with efficiencies in manufacturing processes and improved global transport systems, the American market was flooded with lower-cost goods produced in countries without American-style wage structures or worker-safety and environmental protections.

These and a number of other factors killed the American producer/consumer cycle that formed after the 1940s.

My questions are; was the economic structure that produced such a huge middle class in America a false one? Was it all a pyramid scheme that was destined to collapse?

No, it took a LOT of hard work by scheming fast-buck corporate types and seditious, corrupt politicians to kill the US economic machine - and it took decades to achieve that goal.

lousy screw:Is the very notion of a free economy without huge wealth disparities even practical on a scale as big as the American one? Or is a new model conceivable that would put a healthy percentage of Americans back to work at good wages, without raping the environment and putting lives at risk?

It was possible - but that horse left the barn, wandered down the road and died many years ago.

As you alluded to above, it was the one-two punch that killed it: US Workers naturally wanted (and Unions helped them to get) better, safer working conditions, health and retirement benefits, etc, and decent living wages (the "middle class").

No problem.

Environmentally conscious and forward-thinking people naturally wanted tighter restrictions and controls placed on business to prevent pollution and other hazards for the benefit of man and nature.

Again, no big deal.

The PROBLEM was that these employee benefits and business restrictions drastically increased the costs of doing business - which wouldn't have necessarily been a problem - IF we had simultaneously enacted sensible import restrictions and tariffs that would have allowed US industries to remain competitive with imports from other countries that faced no similar mandates for better working conditions and pollution controls... but we didn't. We allowed foreign competitors to DUMP their products on the US market, and one by one, industries began to either fail, or to move their production facilities overseas in order to remain alive.

Add to this ONE MORE nail: Kill all reasonable Guest Worker programs and replace them with lax, unenforced laws allowing "undocumented workers" to flood into the country (wink wink, nod nod) undercutting the wages in the construction and skilled trades, in manufacturing, and in the service industries.

The US economy and the middle class are not dying of "natural causes", but are the victims of intentional slow-poisoning by seditious, corrupt politicians - REPUBLICAN and DEMOCRAT, that have been intentionally enacting disastrous policies for decades in the service of a handful of pernicious special interest groups who have become massively fat by feeding on America's rotting carcass.

Those of you who live in cities now gentrifying, take a look around. What were once foundries are now condo buildings (I used to live in one). Most major cities have a something like a "warehouse district" that's now upscale eateries and, once again, condos. Those reasonably paying jobs didn't move to the suburbs. They just up and went.

jim32rr:Lived in Germany for a bit after exiting the Army, I found it interesting that in Germany, 'management and unions worked closely together in the interests of the common good. Indeed, by law all major German firms are required to set up Works Councils, where the bosses and the unions must work together 'in a spirit of mutual trust'.

Yes, and they still have a manufacturing based economy while we outsourced ours.

Step three: Actually wear a clean, pressed shirt to a job interview and stop with the farking texting during the interview.

Step four: Avoid neck tattoos

That should get you most of the way there. You're on your own for the rest of it.

Implying that none of the people who work at fast food restaurants are people who have put down the bong and game controller, wore pressed shirts to their job interviews and didn't text during those interviews; and are qualified to work in other fields but can't find a job worth the trouble because the few openings require years of managerial experience but only pay entry-level wages.

Awh, you mad? Seriously, if we just ended the child tax gift and gave it to the millions of people who don't really want to work, it'd be a complete wash anyways. Instead, we (the non-child-bearing public) reward people for having sex (wow, like that's hard) and buying houses (congrats, you bought a house, now why am I supporting you doing so?) ...

Why not reward people who choose to do what they WANT instead of forcing people to work $8/hour jobs slinging burgers at a retarded public? I'd love to make movies and shoot films in my life, but I've realized short of being in a select few people, that will never, ever happen.

I'd love to learn how to fly a plane, but I couldn't afford to do so even if I were to devote everything I make to doing so.

Why not let people live the way they want to give and give everyone a modest place to start from. A cheap place to live, enough food to survive, and basic medical care for everyone aren't things we couldn't afford to do ...

Keep pointing fingers. It's all those OTHER guys' fault!! My team is good, their team is BAD!! Surely if we keep separating ourselves down some arbitrary ideological line and fighting everything the other half of the country wants tooth and nail regardless of merit, things will just fix themselves. And before some genius comes along and says "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican herpa derpa doo!!", no, both sides are not the same. If all you care about are your pet social issues while our economy continues to be held ransom by the rich and powerful, then keep cheering for your team. Our system is broken and absolutely, completely corrupted by big money interests. Yes, the GOP has gone largely off the rails lately and I'm not saying that social issues aren't important, but if you look at actual economic and regulatory legislation that has led us down this path, it has been a bipartisan effort. The only thing both sides can actually agree on is farking over Middle America to benefit themselves and/or their rich masters. Deregulation of Wall Street, Too Big To Fail, corporate personhood, failure to fix campaign finance laws, broken regulatory agencies with revolving doors of employees between the agencies and the entities they are supposed to be regulating, trade agreements that make it easier to ship jobs overseas and tax policies that encourage dumping US production for offshore operations, among MANY other things, ALL have broad bipartisan support. The GOP didn't do this all by themselves.

Yes, the Republican stance on many social issues is repugnant, and they openly fellate big business while giving the poor the finger. The Democrats like to talk big about helping the poor and the middle class, but they don't care any more about you than the Republicans do. They're just preaching to a different choir, so they have to sing a different tune. They like to talk tough about sticking it to the rich and big business but don't actually believe it. They sure as hell don't want to disrupt their OWN gravy train, or piss off the people who own them like chattel. The biggest difference in economic policy between the two parties is how much bullshiat you like in your shiat sandwich. But none of our disastrous economic policies are the Democrats' fault, it's all because REPUBLICANS ARE BIG MEAN POOPYHEADS!!

Whatever. Keep cheerleading for the Dems instead of having a serious conversation about true political reform. Maybe in another 10 years we'll get legal gay marriage and deregulation of pot, which would be cool. Gay spouses all over the country will be able smoke a doob together after their shift ends at Taco Bell and talk about how great the Democrats are before heading off to start their shift at Wal Mart. Personally, if I'm getting forcefully legitimate raped in the ass by 2 cocks, it really doesn't matter to me that one of them is slightly more enthusiastic about it. I'm still getting farked either way.

It's a bit extreme but society should be able to handle a 10% unemployment rate without sh*tting it's diapers... even if those people CHOOSE to be unemployed. Most people want to work and do stuff. Some don't. Why waste your energy getting pissy about it? Give them enough to live without having to become criminals and you'll likely never even know they're there.

jim32rr:Lived in Germany for a bit after exiting the Army, I found it interesting that in Germany, 'management and unions worked closely together in the interests of the common good. Indeed, by law all major German firms are required to set up Works Councils, where the bosses and the unions must work together 'in a spirit of mutual trust'.

///words from a BBC story

Here in America we broke unions backs, because of communism or something. The idea is that they were holding back profitability, thus investment.

Well, we no longer have private sector unions. Profitability is through the roof, and the promise of it being funneled into investment turned out to be false. It's thrown and hoarded in offshore accounts, or given out in dividend and executive pay and finds the same places.

Oops. We only had to allow the hollowing out of the Capitalism for it to work. It's the grand theft by a lazy 1%.

Lived in Germany for a bit after exiting the Army, I found it interesting that in Germany, 'management and unions worked closely together in the interests of the common good. Indeed, by law all major German firms are required to set up Works Councils, where the bosses and the unions must work together 'in a spirit of mutual trust'.

johnryan51:15.80 an hr. Wow, I'm surprised that its that high. If that's the true # then its not to bad.

Well, in my case, I make $12/hr as a full-timer in retail. That's not that much, considering I live in SoCal. Between rent and student loans, that's my whole paycheck. *shrugs* If I wasn't married, I'd have to live with my parents.

The Doge brothers were asses, beyond thinking Henry Ford should provide them with money in the form of dividends for their own car making endeavors. It also needs to be noted that when Ford got rid of dividends the only people who thought of it as actually actionable, were the Dodge brothers. No one else sued Ford, though a few sold off their shares. It reminds me a bit of Kirk Kerkorian, who has in the past bought up sizable stakes in various companies then six months later expressed his displeasure with how they are run even though they were run that way before he bought his shares. If he doesn't like how the company is run, why did he buy the shares? And given he's a minority share holder, why should anyone give a shiat what he thinks? And yes Kerkorian has numerous times threatened law suits.

Amos Quito:Are you starting to catch a glimpse? Or is this too much information for one evening?

Your scenario is nice, too bad it's not based in anything but textbook reality. In actual reality you ignore far too much and put too much blame on the "other". As I mentioned with making cloth, old equipment is not a good thing. I remember when they showed a textile mill in North Carolina lamenting how it shut down, it had equipment from the 1910s and 20s inside. How on God's earth did they ever expect to stay in business when they had equipment so old? Equipment from the 60s would've allowed far greater production at the same cost. Equipment from the 80s would've allowed for greater production still at the same cost. If you can't bother to update your equipment at least once every couple decades, you can't complain when someone does the same thing for less. You could do it for less but you refuse to spend the money to do so.

Way back in 1970 someone was making a ruckus that Chevy had to start focusing on quality more than anything else. Who was that person? John Delorean, head of the Chevy division. Yeah, THAT John Delorean. He actually got his way with the Vega until control of the production facility was turned over from Chevy itself to GM's production division. What's oft overlooked is the people working the assembly line were upset by this, that they were being told in effect to make bad cars. As for Delorean, he was so fed up with GM he quit. Then there's the story of Ford and how they were told time and again to start building not only quality cars but small fuel efficient cars that many people wanted and also something besides huge gas guzzling vans. Who was this person telling Ford to do this? Lee Iaccoca, the CEO of Ford. Ford refused to listen and when he wouldn't shut up about giving people what they actually want, he was fired. Yep, he was fired because he wouldn't stop pushing for Ford to build what people actually wanted.

Go ahead blame the lack of isolationist trade policy, truth of the matter is, it's the people in charge that screwed things up. Had GM listened to Delorean and Ford to Iaccoca, there'd be no talk today about their difficulties in the 80s, they would've avoided them all together. Just as the textile would have been just fine had they bothered to replace their production equipment every couple of decades. Oh as for electronics makers? That's where the profit margin thing comes in. You had people who refused to sacrifice a few percent in profit margin on top of refusing to give people what they want, so when others gave people what they wanted, they were super screwed.

Our nation is wealthier than it has ever been, but that wealth is being hoarded upwards. I don't blame the uber-wealthy by default...it's just that money attracts money. The more you have, the easier it is to earn more while doing less for it. This is why a progressive tax system is necessary. biatch about it all you want, but it's the only way.

fatassbastard:Again, your choice: make excuses and have nothing, or make small sacrifices and take more control of your own life.

funny how it's always up to the income earners to scratch by with a little less, and never up to those who pay the incomes to actually start paying decent incomes again. After all they're perfect, nothing they do is ever wrong, right?

mod3072:here to help: You think they are the same? On some things sure. They both obey money masters. They both think of themselves before the people. But they are so different and so many OTHER ways that any thinking person with an ounce of human compassion don't even see the right wing as a viable alternative.

I don't think we are as far apart on this as it may seem. You just seem more willing to throw up your hands and support a party that you know does not have your best interests at heart. As long as both sides continue to support the major parties out of fear of the other side, nothing will ever change. I'm not saying that it's easy, or that there is a quick, simple solution. I'm just saying that voting for one side because you are terrified of the other is only going to perpetuate the problem. That's how the entrenched parties stay entrenched. Republicans convince their base that if they don't vote for them, the scary gays are going to take over and socialize our Muslim terrorist abortions. Or something. I don't know, it's mostly buzzwords. You adequately explained yourself how the Democrats keep the base voting for them. We need a viable third party and some comprehensive campaign finance reform. Easy to say and hard to do, I realize that. But if enough people get disenfranchised by the 2 party system, anything is possible. Not likely, but possible.

Capicheka? Now run along to your clever boys club meeting. Don't want to keep them waiting.

Typical. Treat any differing point of view as merit-less and childish. I've had fun arguing with you all, but it's finally dried up outside and my lawn isn't going to mow itself. Try not to fall off of your high horse and hurt yourself while I'm gone. I'll pop in later to catch up on the insults hurled my way, so feel free to let them fly.

So all the people voting Democrat to avoid become a third world theocracy should just stop voting until something better comes along? I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through.

Yes. Something needs to happen but this is what we are stuck with for now. The republicans are fading. They will slowly lose more and more support if they continue on like this. Then the Dems will become the new right and there will be room for another party to step in and play the humanist role.

You really do sound young. Not saying that as an insult but yeah... that's young man's jibber jabba.

here to help:mod3072: Wow, good job. You saw right through my clever ruse to shill for the Republican party by bashing the Republican party. I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!

Okay... I'll ignore what I perceived as an endorsement for the pubs. So aside from that you went to great lengths to tell us all how much we slobber over dem cock. The Farkers in general are totally brainwashed by the dems to march in lockstep and we are nothing but subserviant sheeple to the 0bamster.

The thing is... I'm here pretty much every day... even if I'm not posting. Even the libbiest libs on here don't do that. They have plenty of complaints and poor opinions about the current administration. These guys may be derp farmers but they aren't actually dumb. So even ignoring the fact it did indeed appear you were endorsing the republican party you were still using a common right wing tactic of making anyone who even THINKS of voting democratic as mindless sheep.

It simply is not true. The reality is most are not happy with that party but the other guys are indeed WAY worse. Like freaking nutsoid, sell us all into slavery, launch large scale global conflicts next WEEK kind of worse.

You think they are the same? On some things sure. They both obey money masters. They both think of themselves before the people. But they are so different and so many OTHER ways that any thinking person with an ounce of human compassion don't even see the right wing as a viable alternative.

It is insulting to say those people are blind and brainwashed. They just have no other choice.

Capicheka? Now run along to your clever boys club meeting. Don't want to keep them waiting.

So very true, and well said.Also I seriously doubt most people that vote for Dems do so blindly. Does this country need political reform sure, but who's gonna do it? I'd like to see a true liberal party emerge but well that isn't happening anytime soon./Saying both side are bad has been a sorta code to try and get people to vote Republican for a long time.

mod3072:Wow, good job. You saw right through my clever ruse to shill for the Republican party by bashing the Republican party. I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!

Except I saw very little "bashing" of the republican party - as did many other people - and plenty of deflection of blame onto the "other guys" while doing the same thing you accused everyone you quoted in this thread as doing.

Hence, either you completely suck at explaining your position, or you're concern trolling. Which is it?

mod3072:Congratulation on being the first MENSA member to come along and say exactly what I predicted that you would say in my post (which you obviously either didn't read or didn't understand). I'm not apologizing for the GOP, and that entire party can go fark themselves with a rusty chainsaw as far as I'm concerned. It's interesting that you interpret ANY criticism of the Golden Party to be a full-throated endorsement of the GOP (even though I bashed the GOP far harder than the DNC in my post), and then go ahead and just make some random assumptions about my political affiliation and how I feel persecuted because of them or something. Good call.

mod3072:Outrageous Muff: It's only a failure if you make shiat money AND vote republican.

FourBlackBars: This is the perfect GOP economy: money flows up into the rentier class while the increasingly poor bottom votes Republican to keep the Mexicans and gays from ruining their lives.

LordJiro: So there are enough poor and desperate people. The GOP just needs to get those pesky minimum wage and workplace safety laws repealed, and corporations can FINALLY bring jobs back from China!

choo: Thanks, GOP!

Keep pointing fingers. It's all those OTHER guys' fault!! My team is good, their team is BAD!! Surely if we keep separating ourselves down some arbitrary ideological line and fighting everything the other half of the country wants tooth and nail regardless of merit, things will just fix themselves. And before some genius comes along and says "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican herpa derpa doo!!", no, both sides are not the same. If all you care about are your pet social issues while our economy continues to be held ransom by the rich and powerful, then keep cheering for your team. Our system is broken and absolutely, completely corrupted by big money interests. Yes, the GOP has gone largely off the rails lately and I'm not saying that social issues aren't important, but if you look at actual economic and regulatory legislation that has led us down this path, it has been a bipartisan effort. The only thing both sides can actually agree on is farking over Middle America to benefit themselves and/or their rich masters. Deregulation of Wall Street, Too Big To Fail, corporate personhood, failure to fix campaign finance laws, broken regulatory agencies with revolving doors of employees between the agencies and the entities they are supposed to be regulating, trade agreements that make it easier to ship jobs overseas and tax policies that encourage dumping US production for offshore operations, among MANY other things, ALL have broad bipartisan support. The GOP didn't do this al ...

That was pathetic. So basically we're getting screwed by corporations either way so let's choose the guys that are gonna turn the country into freaking Bible camp... because, yanno, whatever.

sigdiamond2000:"The world needs ditch diggers. Not everyone is a special snowflake."

"I'm a ditch digger. "

"LOL you f*ckin loser!"

That's pretty much it IMO. Not everyone is capable of becoming doctors and lawyers, nor would we need that many. At the same time, we've been taught to think that any kind of physical labor or trade is menial and undesirable, that you should avoid those jobs at all costs.

lousy screw:This is a serious question, not a polemic masked as one. It seems throughout our history before World War II the U.S. and, indeed, the world did not have a sizeable middle class. It was the haves and the have-nots, by and large, with a small middle- or merchant class.

After WWII, the American industrial machine ramped up exponentially, producing consumer goods, largely for a domestic market, produced by a well-paid, moderate- to low-skill workforce. Producers could afford to pay these wages because they were selling their products to a somewhat captive market at high prices.

Over time, with efficiencies in manufacturing processes and improved global transport systems, the American market was flooded with lower-cost goods produced in countries without American-style wage structures or worker-safety and environmental protections.

These and a number of other factors killed the American producer/consumer cycle that formed after the 1940s.

My questions are; was the economic structure that produced such a huge middle class in America a false one? Was it all a pyramid scheme that was destined to collapse? Is the very notion of a free economy without huge wealth disparities even practical on a scale as big as the American one? Or is a new model conceivable that would put a healthy percentage of Americans back to work at good wages, without raping the environment and putting lives at risk?

As I said, I'm not arguing any school of thought on this issue, as I really don't know what the solution is, or even if my stated assumptions are valid.

I often wonder the same, and I suspect you may be correct.

You know the science fiction trope that technology will reach a level where physical labor is all but eliminated and that society will become a sort of utopia where no one wants for anything and all are free to pursue the arts or some such? I really think that the more likely scenario is that a few oligarchs will be super wealthy while the rest of us are living in crushing poverty.

But, when similar "improvements" to the jobs picture was reported back when Georgie Porgie was president, everyone was all "yeah, but the type of jobs created were low paying, service jobs." WHAR THE OUTRAGE WHEN IT'S PRESIDENT HOPEY? WHAR?

The truth is somewhere along the lines of the state of the economy has very little to do with whatever "leadership" is provided by the president or Congress. Oops, does this get me banned on Fark?

This problem has been in the works for a few decades. Our educational system sucks and continues to fail (yet) another generation. When manufacturers learned that they could go overseas with jobs formerly based in the USA, especially in the late 70s/early 80s after Big Steel and Big Auto went into decline, that was the beginning of the end. With the emergence of China as a factory for everything else, the actual production capabilities of this country are now often owned by foreign interests. Even those that are not face very difficult opposition from places willing to pay far less in cost and ship here for massive profits. So long as we do not take action to reform education and bring manufacturing jobs back stateside, this problem will continue. Eventually the financial and technology sectors will complete their moves to places like Frankfurt, Shanghai, and Bangalore, leaving us a giant relic of the 20th century with an increasingly intrusive government capable of much more observation and control than Stalin could possibly dream of.

edmo:Soon we'll have the largest, most educated, well-armed class of poor people in the world.

After they sent the good jobs overseas, with their free trade bullshiat, they told us we weren't going to miss them because we were all going to college and get information age jobs.

Don't ever listen to politicians. They had a theory that turned out to be wrong. Who suffers? They enriched themselves and their friends in DC and on Wall St. while the rest of the country bore the brunt of their miscalculations. The Fed serves Wall St. only. I am beginning to think secession is the only option to rid ourselves of Washington DC and the connivers.

It wont. It has become acceptable to become an underachiever because it is currently vogue to blame the president of 6 years ago for the economy. It is almost seem as a duty to Obama to be a failure and talk up his successes while blaming republicans and baby boomers for your bad luck with getting a job. Living in your parents house on their insurance when you are 25 simultaneously is a tribute to Obama's successes, and an incrimination of the evil, stupid republicans. Like any other failed culture, the young, liberal culture of failure was built on celebrating laziness and reviling hard work. You didn't build that; let the government make it all better.

Because there are not any successful, 23 year old college grads anywhere in America, and if they are then they had white privileged or some other made-up thing.

It's all about corporate culture. Our nationwide corporate culture is one that collects wealth to the point that Scrooge himself blush yet extends no friendly gesture to the workers. Our nationwide corporate culture is one that whines incessantly about how it is so difficult to find qualified applicants yet at the same time despises training and demands years of experience for every posting. Our nationwide corporate culture is one that eschews long-term growth for short-term gains. Our nationwide corporate culture is one that axes loyal employees for the sake of a distant, mewling shareholder.

You're not part of the problem. You are the problem. You are our nationwide corporate culture. You define it. It's been said that we deserve the politicians we elect, but the wound runs deeper than that. We deserve the culture we allow.

You'd be wrong. The money saved isn't enough to cover the illness, the car repair, extended unemployment, etc. You threw in that mundane stuff at the end to make it seem more reasonable, but it's not. Saving will not produce enough of a return to cover the big stuff. Again, it's not that they should have to make do with less, their wages have to increase.

fatassbastard:And bear in mind I only suggested $25/paycheck. Most of us with full time jobs could do more.

Let's take the $15.80/hr example Save 5% of your annual salary at 7.25% annual return (preferably in an IRA or 401(k) so you can't spend it before retirement) and in 30 years you'll have ~$175,000. Is that "useless" too?

You'd be wrong, AGAIN. That $15.80 gets eaten up very quickly. Rising rent, rising food and fuel costs, rising utilities, stagnant wages. Heaven forbid you have any children or other dependents. $175,000 in 30 years is less than useless if you need money *now*. Wages have to increase before people can save. They're spending all of their money just trying to get by, and it's still not enough. A payoff in 30 years is meaningless if you can't make ends meet in the present.

WhyteRaven74:Amos Quito: Most of those that died did so because they couldn't compete with foreign dumping.

When you produce cloth on 60 year old machines and someone starts making it on new machines, it doesn't matter where they are, you're doomed unless you get new equipment.

When you're unwilling to give people what they want, it doesn't matter where a competitor is, they're going to eat your lunch. When you're unwilling to cut your profit margin while a competitor gladly goes with a lower one and makes what people want, you're not long for this world.

You seem to be suffering under the delusion that the loss of the US' manufacturing and heavy industry was simply do to the fact that American companies were greedy, had no desire to innovate, and that they simply "disappeared" because people of foreign nations are less selfish, more innovative, less greedy, and just plain better at business.

Do you think the American companies that once produced goods here in the US simply disappeared? That those who ran and made fortunes from them simply faded away?

Imagine for a moment that you're a manufacturer of widgets here in the US, and have been for some time. You run a union shop, pay your employees well and offer decent benefits. Your equipment and processes are a bit dated, but you are still able to offer a quality product at a reasonable price, and customer loyalty is high.

Then a foreign competitor appears in the market - offering widgets that, while they may be of equal or lesser quality, are priced considerably cheaper than those you make - and they have snazzy bells and whistles that you have yet to offer. One reason that the new guy can offer such a competitive price is that he faces little or no tariffs or restrictions: He can import at will.

So you decide that it's time to make some changes: Do or die. You'll need to build entirely new facilities because not only is your equipment outdated, the EPA (and assorted agencies) are crawling all over your back because of the air pollution and waste water that is inherent in widget production. Also, the unions are crawling up your ass, demanding a 13% rise in wages, and numerous other benefits.

You have a fair amount of capital on hand and good access to credit - what do you do?

You have 2 options to consider:

Option 1. Stay in Indiana: That means building an entirely new facility that will meet not only your production goals, but will satisfy the new requirements ($$$) placed on you by the EPA and other regulatory bodies. Said facility will be built with union labor ($$$) under strict code enforcement AND will be manned by your UNION workforce. You'll be able to produce a comparable product, but can you compete?

Option 2. Move production overseas. You still have to build a new facility, but construction costs will be MUCH lower, and greasing a few palms will assure that there are no "permit hassles" to be faced. Also, there will be no EPA bureaucrats fussing about pollution, and NO UNIONS rabble rousing the workforce - who will be paid 25% of what your US employees make, have NO benefits, and expect no benefits. You'll be able to build your new plant at 1/3 the cost, employ people for 1/4 the cost, AND face a LOT less red tape from bureaucrats. You'll be able to produce a better product than you are today, sell it in the US at a very competitive price, and DOUBLE your profits - because THE US ALLOWS FOREIGN MADE WIDGETS TO BE DUMPED ON THE MARKET WITH NO TARIFFS AND NO IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.

Now, what choice do you think a shrewd, savvy businessman would make? Indiana or China?

This is simple carrot-and-stick psychology: If you want to direct someone's behavior, provide incentives for them to do that which you want them to do, and disincentives for them to do that which you do not want them to do.

Those entities that once employed millions of US workers didn't simply vanish via attrition - they simply followed the path of least resistance, and moved their manufacturing facilities to profit-friendly locations - while largely retaining their market thanks to the sweet sweet DUMP ON US policies put in place by our traitorous "free trade" politicians.

Greed and competition didn't kill America's industrial base, seditious politicians did. We allowed countries to DUMP their products on us even as they enforced prohibitively high tariffs against US made goods.

Are you starting to catch a glimpse? Or is this too much information for one evening?

The rich and established have the edge, though. Its very well documented.

Also, LOL at the 6-8000 over 10 YEARS.

Assuming the stocks you back always perform. We'll never have another rainy day ever!

Everytime I hear someone parroting about the stock market I remember a time where everyone believed Enron was rock solid. To be honest, it was if you were rich enough to be involved in the background/shady stuff and cashed out before all the peons lost their retirement.

tinfoil-hat maggie:I'm guessing you're still in college, pretty young and really don't remember all the things that have happened and why over the years.

I wish! Unfortunately, you're off by more than a decade. I remember plenty that has happened over the years and why. The biggest lesson I've learned is that if there is a bill or policy that isn't some meaningless piece of populist fluffery and it has the support of both parties, you best grab your ankles and reach for the lube because you're about to get farked.

ReapTheChaos:Like I said in my post I make less than that and my budget is no where near what you're suggesting and I own my own home. I realize cost of living differs from place to place but if you put some effort into it you can live comfortably on $32,000 a year.

Comfortably is subjective. The only way you can live "comfortably" is to have no debt, and be room mates with someone who can split costs. And not incur any emergency costs, like replacing an AC unit.

So for $6000 ($50 * 120), I get a whopping return of $2883.78? I'M RICH! I'M MITT ROMNEY!

Yeah and that's assuming you've never had to dip in to that savings for a big insurance co-payment or a broken A/C or your car breaking down or some a$$hole backing in to it while doing an 18 point turn and driving off because fark you that's why or you landlord increasing your rent or your friend dies or gets married or or or...If all you can afford to save is $25 every 2 weeks, these little life nuisances are going to eat away at any savings real quick. When the question food/car/healthcare vs savings account, the immediate thing wins.

here to help:You think they are the same? On some things sure. They both obey money masters. They both think of themselves before the people. But they are so different and so many OTHER ways that any thinking person with an ounce of human compassion don't even see the right wing as a viable alternative.

I don't think we are as far apart on this as it may seem. You just seem more willing to throw up your hands and support a party that you know does not have your best interests at heart. As long as both sides continue to support the major parties out of fear of the other side, nothing will ever change. I'm not saying that it's easy, or that there is a quick, simple solution. I'm just saying that voting for one side because you are terrified of the other is only going to perpetuate the problem. That's how the entrenched parties stay entrenched. Republicans convince their base that if they don't vote for them, the scary gays are going to take over and socialize our Muslim terrorist abortions. Or something. I don't know, it's mostly buzzwords. You adequately explained yourself how the Democrats keep the base voting for them. We need a viable third party and some comprehensive campaign finance reform. Easy to say and hard to do, I realize that. But if enough people get disenfranchised by the 2 party system, anything is possible. Not likely, but possible.

Capicheka? Now run along to your clever boys club meeting. Don't want to keep them waiting.

Typical. Treat any differing point of view as merit-less and childish. I've had fun arguing with you all, but it's finally dried up outside and my lawn isn't going to mow itself. Try not to fall off of your high horse and hurt yourself while I'm gone. I'll pop in later to catch up on the insults hurled my way, so feel free to let them fly.

hardinparamedic:Amos Quito: Where we, the public have failed is in our duty to hold the corrupt, treasonous politicians PAINFULLY accountable for their seditious collusion with the greedy bastards.

So much rope to be stretched - so little time.

If anything, the French Revolution taught us also that there will be people like you, just waiting to form Committees on the Public Safety, and keep order too. I mean, sure thousands of innocent people die.

"And the men who spurred us onSit in judgment of all wrongThey decide and the shotgun sings the song"-- The Who

"A Republic, if you can keep it."-- Benjamin Franklin "God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty."

-- Thomas Jefferson

hardinparamedic: Trading one form of Tyranny for another. That's the ironic comedy of people who are all too eager to force everyone else against the wall for the revolution.

/those people would also do well to remember what happened to Robbspierre.

Okay fine.

Just carry on under the delusion that your government is ultimately benevolent, there is a meaningful difference between the "Left" and the "Right", and that things will just keep getting better and better if we will ONLY allow those that govern unlimited power.

ReapTheChaos:"These jobs, which account for 33% of all private sector jobs, pay an average of $15.80 per hour."

$15.80 an hour is a pretty decent wage in most places. You wont live like a king, but you'll manage. The problem is people are spoiled. They think they need to drive a new car, have the best furnishings in their house, $80 a month cable Tv on their 50" flat screens, $200 cell phones with a $75 monthly plan and a slew of other crap that you can live without.

That puts us at $1,883Now you want to have the ability to actually have a life, OK

Phone+Internet: $75 ;yes, you could get by without internet and just having a phone, but you wouldn't be here then now would youLunch out once a week or going to the bar twice a month or going to see a ball game once a month or going to the symphony every other month: $50

Now we're up to $2,008, or $30 dollars left over to maintain the car and buy clothing and such.

Where can we pare this down. Let's see, we could ditch the car if we lived in a more urban area. So we can get rid of fuel and car insurance, but our rent would go up to $950, and we'd need to spend $75/mo on a transit pass. That's a losing proposition.

We can move to a rural area, drop rent to $500/mo, but pay another $100/mo in fuel, $50 a month in utilities (those cheap places in rural areas are always poorly insulated and have crap appliances). That does add a bit, but you're sacrificing 2 hrs a day, or 10 hours a week, or 43 hours a month of your life in commuting. That's more than a week's worth of work for saving that money. If you need to you can do it and work out on the plus side. Be aware that your personal life will suffer and your health will suffer. Thursday will come and you'll be buying lunch because you woke up too damn late to make it yourself, so add another $25/mo there.

We can move to the ghetto. Bus service will be spotty at best (giving you that wonderful hour commute like in a rural area if you decide to ditch the car as below) and you can up your car insurance by $30 a month. Rent will be $400, but you'll spend more money eating out because who wants to go home to the ghetto, so add another $100 to that budget. Same issue applies with the utilities, and extra $50 because you live on top floor of a house with windows that are so loose the newspaper blows off the table when the wind blows in the winter. Factor in an additional $20/mo for getting rolled for your rent money while you're taking a shower in the shared bathroom. You could theoretically lose the car in the ghetto, so you can take the insurance off of it, but again, $230 for fuel/insurance vs $75 for the bus pass and an additional $100/mo for food (because now you're limited to what's available in the ghetto), and that's not really a great option either.

So, a roommate. Cut your rent in half, and cut your utilities by a third (because that bastard takes 2 hour showers and leaves every goddamned light on) and increase your food by 1/3 (those were MY chicken nuggets), and your eating out budget to $150 a month (how many times do I have to come home to find not a clean dish anywhere? Guess it's pizza again) and your fuel budget by $50 (why does he always need a goddamned ride?)... Hrmm, that sounds like it loses too.

Or you could be that scumbag roommate who eats the other guys food and schemes rides off of him n'at. You could move in with your current SO, and just replace a third of your stuff every two years when they flip out and leave (avg).

Or you could start a business building guillotines. We'll need them soon.

mod3072:Where exactly in my post did I endorse Mitt Romney or the Republican party? What the fark is so hard for you people to understand? I hate BOTH parties. There wasn't a good option for president (or for pretty ANY federal political office), and there never is, and there never will be so long as the proles continue to support either one of the two major parties because, well, the other side is worse. So obviously I think everyone should vote Republican. That makes perfect sense, I guess.

Well for someone who wasn't endorsing Republicans over Dems you sure managed to get a lot of people under the impression you were.

That's a lot of text just to say Both Sides are Bad so Vote Republican. Especially on the apologetics on the issues of social conservativism being what is killing the GOP.

Congratulation on being the first MENSA member to come along and say exactly what I predicted that you would say in my post (which you obviously either didn't read or didn't understand). I'm not apologizing for the GOP, and that entire party can go fark themselves with a rusty chainsaw as far as I'm concerned. It's interesting that you interpret ANY criticism of the Golden Party to be a full-throated endorsement of the GOP (even though I bashed the GOP far harder than the DNC in my post), and then go ahead and just make some random assumptions about my political affiliation and how I feel persecuted because of them or something. Good call.

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face:Plenty of 'thanks, Obama' posts but he only picks the 'thanks, GOP' posts. Pretty much stopped reading there.

Yes, yes, Both Sides Are Bad. Some Sides Are More Bad Than Others isn't helping.

Your first point is certainly valid, and the finger-pointing does no good whether it's pointing to the left or the right. I did not intend to imply that this is a one-sided problem. In my defense, the "Thanks, Obama" posts on Fark tend to be more sarcastic in nature, while putting the full blame on the GOP is standard Fark fare. Not that we don't have those who blame Obama for every bad thing ever, which is equally retarded. Oh, and "Both Sides Are Bad.Some Sides Are More Bad Than Others isn't helping."is pretty much exactly the point that I was trying to make. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

But, hey, let's keep fighting each other while we get robbed by both sides. That's exactly what the people who run this country want. Divide and conquer is a very effective strategy, and it has been working wonderfully for them. It keeps us distracted while they sell our future to the highest bidder and enrich themselves at our expense.

Yeah, the cool thing is that our new "guests" will be willing to flip those burgers at half the going wage.

It gets even better.

Last I heard the new arrivals don't count toward your 50 person limit on the new health care law (Obamacare)

So

1) They'll work cheaper2) They work harder3) You can give them full time jobs and it not push you over your 50 limit so that you have to spend all that money on health care.4) There now legal to hire

Why would you hire a native born when you can get these guys? Fire the born heres and hire the new legal illegals.

Bonus:

Once the "new legals" are legal, it will open up a huge demand to fill the positions that they formerly occupied as illegals, so we'll have a brand new bumper crop of "undocumented workers" pouring over the borders to fill that demand.

Amos Quito:We allowed foreign competitors to DUMP their products on the US market, and one by one, industries began to either fail, or to move their production facilities overseas in order to remain alive.

Those industries you list either undid themselves or just relocated in the name of a bigger bottom line.

miniflea:You know the science fiction trope that technology will reach a level where physical labor is all but eliminated and that society will become a sort of utopia where no one wants for anything and all are free to pursue the arts or some such? I really think that the more likely scenario is that a few oligarchs will be super wealthy while the rest of us are living in crushing poverty.

There will still be a small middle class of engineers/technicians, and police/soldiers to keep the Morlocks at bay. But yeah, they'll be vassals of the Eloi, and constantly threatened with being cast out of Paradise to face the teeming hordes that hate them as much as their masters.

vpb:jim32rr: Lived in Germany for a bit after exiting the Army, I found it interesting that in Germany, 'management and unions worked closely together in the interests of the common good. Indeed, by law all major German firms are required to set up Works Councils, where the bosses and the unions must work together 'in a spirit of mutual trust'.

Yes, and they still have a manufacturing based economy while we outsourced ours.

The ran the mid-easterners out in the 40s. Consequently, they get a country of Germans putting Germany first.

"These jobs, which account for 33% of all private sector jobs, pay an average of $15.80 per hour."

$15.80 an hour is a pretty decent wage in most places. You wont live like a king, but you'll manage. The problem is people are spoiled. They think they need to drive a new car, have the best furnishings in their house, $80 a month cable Tv on their 50" flat screens, $200 cell phones with a $75 monthly plan and a slew of other crap that you can live without.

silvervial:Either there will be a return to focus on the working class/poor/middle class...or there will be revolt.

I doubt that. Remember all the poor working-class slobs proudly bragging about how many jobs they had to hold down in order to make a living during that whole 1% vs the 99% and Occupy Wall Street stuff?

This is nothing new. This has been the story of the so-called recovery since day one. All is takes is the effort to look behind the numbers. The recovery has been a grand success in that the large banks and Wall Street have been bailed-out and are now reaping record profits while the stock market is at a record high. This is exactly as intended. As for the rest of us, no so much but then that was never the point of all of the policies initiated at the end of the Bush years and supported by Obama.

Delay:raerae1980: johnryan51: 15.80 an hr. Wow, I'm surprised that its that high. If that's the true # then its not to bad.

Well, in my case, I make $12/hr as a full-timer in retail. That's not that much, considering I live in SoCal. Between rent and student loans, that's my whole paycheck. *shrugs* If I wasn't married, I'd have to live with my parents.

You post $12/hr full time. Do you receive health care or any other benefits?

As a Canadian making the same, I'd be interested in the comparison. Cause I know my taxes are higher :P

why report your income honestly when you know there is ZERO benefit to do so? THE_IRS claims they lose $500 billion in tax revenue because of the shadow economy. Any tiny violin players out there that can assist me with the chorus?